Samsung Display’s application for a temporary injunction to prevent key employees in charge of organic light-emitting diode ( OLED ) display research and development from moving to a foreign competitor in violation of the ‘prohibition of transfer agreement’ was accepted.
According to the legal community on the 3rd, the Civil Settlement Division 50 of the Seoul Central District Court (Senior Director Park Beom-seok) accepted Samsung Display’s request for a temporary injunction against former employee B, who recently transferred to Company A in China.
Mr. B joined Samsung Display in September 2008 and worked as a group leader in process development for OLED production since 2012 before leaving the company in January of last year. Mr. B received a foreign employment permit in April of that year and worked at Company A.
However, the problem became that Mr. B had written a pledge스포츠토토 to protect trade secrets, etc., which included an agreement prohibiting change of job, just before leaving the company, and received 87 million won excluding taxes as a deposit after retirement. This agreement reportedly contains the following: ‘For two years from the date of retirement, I will refrain from starting a company or changing jobs to a domestic or foreign competitor where trade secrets may be leaked or used.’ It is also reported that they pledged that if they violate this, they will pay twice the contract amount as a penalty and take legal responsibility.
The issue was whether the agreement prohibiting job change was valid. The court determined that there was no problem after examining whether this agreement was contrary to good morals and other social order as defined in Article 103 of the Civil Act (legal acts against social order). The court said, “ OLED
owned by Samsung Display“The display production technology is difficult to acquire from outside, and if it is leaked to a competitor, the damage will be significant,” he explained. “It is difficult to conclude that the subjects or period of prohibition on changing jobs specified in the agreement are overly comprehensive or overly long.” . In addition, the business information handled by Mr. B was designated as a national core technology protected under the Act on Prevention and Protection of Industrial Technology Leakage, so it was considered an interest worthy of protection.
Mr. B also claimed, “Company A produces small medical laser treatment devices and is not a competing company that prohibits change of job in the contract.” However, the court ruled that there was a possibility of roundabout employment.
The court said, “Considering Mr. B’s experience and previous salary level, it is doubtful whether he was truly employed by Company A, a small Chinese company, and it is also difficult to accept the reason why he was employed by Company A, which was unrelated to his previous experience.” The necessity is not recognized only when the fact of employment at a prohibited competitor is clearly demonstrated, and there are reasonable circumstances to suspect employment at a competitor or there are circumstances that indicate a plan or intention to change jobs. “The need to preserve the injunction may be recognized,” he explained.
